forengineering and computer science graduates, began focusing heavily on student successinitiatives in 2004 with support from the Engineering Schools of the West Initiative, through theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This first wave of initiatives was critically assessed, andengineering student success became a focal point for the CoE. Internal research conducted underthis grant exposed numerous roadblocks that impeded students' academic success. In 2010,another large grant, funded through the National Science Foundation Science Talent ExpansionProgram (STEP), was awarded to increase the numbers of students graduating with STEMdegrees. This grant engaged an interdisciplinary, cross-college team of STEM educatorspassionate about continuous
. Trinidad Sotomayor, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Trinidad is an Engineering Design Master Student at Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile (UC). She owns a bachelor degree in mechanical engineering with a major in Design and Innovation. At DILAB (UC), the engineering design initiative, Trinidad has been working as a researcher in topics regarding engineering education such as entrepreneurship, epistemologies and minorities, among others. c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020Work in Progress: Developing a more comprehensive instrument to assess theentrepreneurial mindset of engineering studentsAbstractThis is a Work in Progress: Goals of becoming more entrepreneurial have
educations and explore how misalignments betweenuniversity and workplace practices impact preparation and retention.This paper presents recent research results on the engineering student learning experience fromthe multiple campuses involved in the study. These summarized results—from the students'perspective(s)—present initial conclusions about significant themes. In the longer run, thesethemes will be synthesized across the results of this large study. Among other ideas, theseresults question the veracity of the pipeline metaphor that has been used to describe students’navigation through their education. The “leaky pipeline” metaphor has also been questioned byothers, including Watson and Froyd26 recently, who are calling for an alternative view
AC 2012-3131: DO STUDENTS DREAM BEYOND LEDS? INNOVATIVEQUALITIES OF IDEAS GENERATED BY FIRST-YEAR ENGINEERINGSTUDENTSNicholas D. Fila, Purdue University Nicholas D. Fila is a doctoral student and graduate research assistant in the School of Engineering Educa- tion at Purdue University. He received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical and computer engineering from the University of Illinois. He has published conference papers on cooperative learning and team innovation. His research focuses on teamwork, innovation, and laboratory education.Dr. Senay Purzer, Purdue University, West Lafayette Senay Purzer is an Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education and is the Director of Assessment Research for
definition, and problem solving discourse among students, faculty, and practitioners. Dr. Olewnik is also the Director of Experiential Learning for the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.Dr. Randy Yerrick, Fresno State University Randy Yerrick is Dean of the Kremen School for Education and Human Development at CSU Fresno. He has also served as Professor of Science Education at SUNY Buffalo where he Associate Dean and Sci- ence Education Professor for the Graduate School of Education. Dr. Yerrick maintains an active research agenda focusing on two central questions: 1) How do scientific norms of discourse get enacted in class- rooms and 2) To what extend can historical barriers to STEM learning be traversed for
integrationof students is pivotal in their ability to persist to graduation [1]. The theory of socialinterdependence [2], [3] elaborates that inclusive, cooperative work is characterized by studentsbeing highly committed. During the Fall 2017 semester of Purdue Polytechnic Institute’sintroductory video game development course (CGT Game Dev I), a course design emphasizingcollaboration among students was employed; an extremely collaborative atmosphere and anunusually high lab attendance rate was then observed. The following year (Fall 2018), the designof CGT Game Dev I was altered to emphasize a more individualized curriculum; decreasedattendance was then observed until end-of-semester groupwork began [4].The problem addressed by this project is that
sociocultural dimensions of engineering education.Andrew Elby, University of Maryland, College Park Andrew Elby’s work focuses on student and teacher epistemologies and how they couple to other cognitive machinery and help to drive behavior in learning environments. His academic training was in Physics and Philosophy before he turned to science (particularly physics) education research. More recently, he has started exploring engineering students’ entangled identities and epistemologies.Dr. Ayush Gupta, University of Maryland, College Park Ayush Gupta is Assistant Research Professor in Physics and Keystone Instructor in the A. J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland. Broadly speaking he is interested in
course, and students satisfy thisrequirement in a variety of ways. A large proportion of students participate in real-world,industry-sponsored projects. Nearly all programs have a strong connection with industry at thecapstone level, leveraging their geographical location both to identify design projects and toinvolve people from industry as adjunct faculty in the classroom. In addition, there is interestamong some faculty and administrators in allowing student credit for activities such asundergraduate research or competitive design projects sponsored by student organizations.At the ASU Polytechnic campus, the Bachelor of Science in Engineering (B.S.E.) degreeprogram enrolled its first students in fall of 2005 and graduated the first cohort of
Computer Science Department at Forman Christian College (A Chartered University) at Pakistan for eight years and was recognized for outstanding teaching with the year 2013 teaching award. Saira was also the recipient of the ”President of Pakistan Merit and Talent Scholarship” for her undergraduate studies.Dr. Muhsin Menekse, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Muhsin Menekse is an Assistant Professor at Purdue University with a joint appointment in the School of Engineering Education and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Dr. Menekse’s primary research focus is on exploring K-16 students’ engagement and learning of engineering and science con- cepts by creating innovative
longer remain as it has for essentially the past 40 Page 25.1233.2 years. The subjects of globalization, diversity, world cultures and languages, communication, leadership, and ethics must constitute a core component of the overall engineering education just as physics and mathematics do.” [3, p. 87]The important role that engineering education plays in preparing engineering graduates of thefuture is emphasized in several scholarly publications4, 5. In [4], the authors explore the currentstate of engineering education and provide recommendations for improvement. In particular,they emphasize the importance of giving students a
Paper ID #33176Student Recognition, Use, and Understanding of Engineering for OnePlanet Competencies and Outcomes in Project-based LearningJames Larson, Arizona State University James Larson is a graduate of Arizona State University, Polytechnic Campus. The general engineer- ing program in The Polytechnic School takes a project-based pedagogical approach when designing the curriculum. James has previously researched influences for this program design in examinations of the Maker Movement. Previous contributions to ASEE on this subject include conference papers, ”Sup- porting K-12 Student Self-Direction with a Maker Family
), suggesting a complex anddynamic interaction between context and learner that shapes the emergence of relevant affective andmotivational processes related to learning and knowledge construction in engineering education. Theunderlying stability of student affect/ motivation and engagement, the environmental factors thatcontribute to its dynamic change over time, and the meaningful levels of analysis and time frames ofstudy are all points of leverage for future research. Evaluation and assessment. The establishment of faculty collaborative networks for research andteaching (Madhavan, et al., 2011) and the diffusion of educational innovations among engineeringeducation faculty (Borrego, et al., 2010) possess underlying network structures that
science, technology,engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educators in an easily accessible and compelling form:that of an online forum student usage model. Recent work in engineering education providesprecedent for the use of personas to communicate research findings [10-12]. Moreover, incommunicating our findings using personas with contextualized scenarios that describe how thepersonas choose to actively engage (or not engage) with the online forum, we anticipate (a)improved transfer of contextual findings to a broad audience of STEM education stakeholdersand (b) heightened motivation and confidence among STEM educators toward implementingonline forums in order to increase participation of diverse, nontraditional undergraduates.Prior Use of
Table 1, below, identifies each of the 9 dimensions of innovation and indicates the meanlevel of their perceived rating in the incubator. Mean ratings are noted along with a short Collaboration & Cooperation Permeable Boundaries Voluntary Participation Safe Supportive Environment Respect for Faculty Governance Experimentation & Evaluation Administrative & Departmental Support Entrepreneurial Student Involvement Multiple & Diverse Perspectives Strategic Partnerships Exploration & Risk-taking Transparent & Inclusive Processes Inspiring Leverage Research &
Introductory Design CourseTeamwork and Collaboration are among the three primary competencies needed for graduates tobe successful in the workplace according to the Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and21st Century Skills organized by the National Research Council.1 The committee reviewed eightthematic reports and subsequently presented a framework intended to inform curriculumprograms of these desired skills. Organizations and criteria governing the accreditation ofvarious higher education disciplines also address the need for teamwork skills. Several studentoutcomes in the ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission2 specifically relate tocollaborative work: 3(d): an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams 3(g): an ability to
communities21, service learning22, problem-based learning23,24, cooperative learning24and the use of team projects25. More recently, researchers have tried to improve engagement byintroducing cultural touch stones for teaching engineering concepts in large classrooms26,collaboration with multiple disciplines27, collaboration between multiple schools28, ethnographicrecords and virtual learning experiments29.Recent research efforts have identified the role that faculty plays in the classroom to create anenvironment that is engaging to the students30. This is especially true in teaching focusedschools such as Tuskegee University31,32. The way teacher behaves in classroom and his/hercommunication ability plays a crucial role in the engagement of students8
, Universidad EAFIT, Medellin, Colombia - Purdue University, West Lafayette ´ Juan David Ortega Alvarez is an assistant professor at Universidad EAFIT and served as the Head of the Process Engineering Department from 2010 to 2014. He holds an MS in Process Engineering and Energy Technology from Hochschule Bremerhaven (Germany) and is currently enrolled as a graduate student in the Engineering Education Doctoral Program at Purdue University. Before his full-time appointment with EAFIT, he served as Engineering Director for a chemical company for 7 years. His research interests are focused on the practice and teaching of process design, simulation and control and also on faculty and institutional
Paper ID #10737Critical Thinking, Reflective Practice, and Adaptive Expertise in EngineeringNathan Hicks, University of Florida Current graduate student in materials science and engineering at the University of Florida. Spent three years teaching high school math and science before returning to graduate school for an advanced degree.Amy Elizabeth Bumbaco, University of FloridaDr. Elliot P. Douglas, University of Florida Elliot P. Douglas is Associate Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Dean’s Fellow for Engi- neering Education, and Distinguished Teaching Scholar at the University of Florida. He conducts research
resulted in lasting changes. The ChemE project was notsustained, for two reasons. First, although it was very effective, the ChemE project proved to beso facility and people intensive that it became clear that it could not be institutionalized in itsoriginal form. Secondly, the faculty champion departed Penn State before lower cost ways toadapt the approach could be investigated. Page 11.3.7The fate of the IME and ME projects gave us some new insights into the change process. TheIME, Inc. project was a definite success and met expectations for student outcomes. Its successallowed the IME faculty to see that such changes could be undertaken
commitment and motivation [7], [9]. faculty. - Faculty members serve as inspiration and as partner of discussion improving the aspiration of the students [3], [7], [10]. - Learning requires cooperation between student and faculty. Enhanced student-faculty contact promotes the cooperation [11]. 2. Promote student collaboration and - After graduation students will enter jobs where team-work-skills are often a requirement or at least appreciated [12]. responsibility for own learning. - Collaboration promotes
students in different fieldswill have different levels of wellbeing as well as perceptions of stress, competition, andachievement. This relationship is hypothesized because they would be socialized in differentcharacteristics that are deemed particular to their fields. In this exploration, we first use largegroups to identify any specific differentiation of engineering compared against the other twolarge categories considered. However, future work will involve the exploration of differencesbetween engineering and specific majors individually.MethodsDataWe used data from the Healthy Minds Study (HMS), a web-based survey administered throughthe Healthy Minds Network for Research on Adolescent and Young Adult Mental Health(HMN). The initiative was
. Page 26.650.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Engineering, Society and the Environment in the Teaching Goals and Practices of Engineering InstructorsIntroductionConsidering societal, institutional, professional and accreditation-related expectations andrequirements, and the interest from students in applying their technical skills to social andenvironmental issues, engineering undergraduate programs are expected to encourage students toconsider the impact of engineering’s work on society and the environment, explore therelationships between technology and society, and encourage students and graduates to engage incitizenship and action – defining characteristics of STSE
engineeringstudents with a mentoring faculty member and, occasionally, a graduate student who is an expertin the area of “innovative design”. The collaborative team works to solve a real-world problemthrough the application of various design techniques. In addition, the collaboration can improveor even identify enhanced design techniques and processes. For example, past research effortsimproved the design method in two areas: 1) the understanding of how to develop and implementprototyping strategies which are effective and efficient [11] - [15] and 2) new methods toenhance ideation based on analogies to biological systems [16]. The sponsor organizationresearch partners take keen interest in the design methodology research; oftentimes adoptingthese techniques
to make meaning of theselived experiences using the interview as a collaborative mechanism49,54. Roulston55(p76)describes using interviews to aid in “research for understanding” with the research questionsdriving the approach. Since we are seeking to interpret, and make meaning of, HSB from theperspective of the student in the context of an undergraduate engineering environment, this studywill be an interpretive, qualitative, interview study49,52,55,56.Semi-structured interviews allow for flexibility in question order and direction based on datafrom the participants’ responses while providing a conversational, comfortable atmosphere57–60.A preconceived question list including a suggested order of questions provides scaffolding;however, in a
, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education.20. Grandy, J. (1994). Gender and ethnic differences among science and engineering majors: Experiences, achievements, and expectations. (RR-94-30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.21. Morozov, A., Kilgore, D., Yasuhara, K., & Atman, C. (2008). Same courses, different outcomes? Variations in confidence, experience, and preparation in engineering design. Paper presented at the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA. https://peer.asee.org/348622. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_423. Center
engineering techniques. His recent research focuses on the effect of high-impact practices on engineering and computer science undergraduate student outcomes around academic success and persistence.Dr. Candis S. Claiborn, Washington State University Professor Emeritus Candis Claiborn has been at Washington State University since 1991. In 2016, she returned to faculty after serving for 10 years as Dean of the Voiland College of Engineering and Archi- tecture at WSU. Prior to that, she served as interim dean and as associate dean for research and graduate programs. Dr. Claiborn received her PhD in chemical engineering from North Carolina State University in 1991. Her research interests are in engineering education
Paper ID #33752The PEERSIST Project: Promoting Engineering Persistence Through Peer-ledStudy GroupsMs. Thien Ngoc Y Ta, Arizona State University Thien Ta is a doctoral student of Engineering Education Systems and Design at Arizona State University. She obtained her B.S., and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering. She has taught for Cao Thang technical college for seven years in Vietnam. She is currently a graduate research associate for the Entrepreneurial Mindset initiative at the Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at Arizona State University. Her doctoral research focuses on Entrepreneurship Education and Innovation in
to meet the demands of growing enrollment. This was viewed as anundesirable situation for a major research university; therefore, it was deemed necessary toreduce the large number of graduate assistants and non-tenured instructors. Of course, thisrequired major restructuring of the English Department, which phased out the technical writingcourses being offered. Since engineering relied upon these courses for all of its disciplines, thisforced a re-thinking of how students would receive this type of skill.The loss of technical writing was not met with a sense of loss of historic proportions becausethere had been many engineering faculty members who had already questioned the value of thisresource. Among the issues raised were:• Return on
structures of macromolecular assemblies including proteins, polymers, and lipid membranes. Undergrad- uates, graduate students, and postdoctoral scholars are trained in a multidisciplinary environment, utilizing modern methodologies to address important problems at the interface between chemistry, physics, engi- neering, and biology preparing the trainees for careers in academe, national laboratories, and industry. In addition to research, she devotes significant time developing and implementing effective pedagogical approaches in her teaching of undergraduate courses to train engineers who are critical thinkers, problem solvers, and able to understand the societal contexts in which they are working to addressing the grand
interviews with physics faculty, some of whom had beliefs thatwere aligned with theories emerging from physics education research, but had not adoptedresearch-supported pedagogies, found several structural barriers to adoption of research-supported pedagogies. These included anticipated resistance from students, the one-size-fits-allschedule of courses that meet three fixed-length times a week for a semester, amount of materialthat is expected to be covered in a single course, department norms that support traditionalapproaches, and lack of time (see above). Student resistance to pedagogies that expect moreactive participation in class has been reported elsewhere47,48. Cooper et al.48 offer the followingstrategies to address anticipated student